The
Chairman: The ayes have
it.
Hon.
Members: No, the noes have
it!
The
Chairman: I am sorry. The last time I chaired a Committee
I always forgot to say, “Unlock”, and I was thinking
about remembering to say that. To avoid any doubt, the noes have it.
Unlock. Question
accordingly
negatived.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
Selous: I want to ask the Government to say a little about
clause 19(3), specifically in relation to Jobcentre Plus, which, the
helpful explanatory notes tell us, is covered by the subsection. We
have the list and we have heard a lot about the local strategic
partnership but, if we are dealing with child poverty in an area, one
of the key players must be Jobcentre Plus. How will
things be different in future with Jobcentre Plus? My experience
locally, and what I hear from colleagues across the House about the
involvement of Jobcentre Plus at a local
level—
Helen
Goodman: So that we can have a more efficient debate,
could the hon. Gentleman flesh out a little more detail about what sort
of flexibilities he is looking for? Then I could respond on whether we
are going to go down that
path.
Andrew
Selous: Of course; the Minister is right to press me on
that. I am talking about engagement, not about dismantling the whole
benefits structure—it would not be appropriate to talk about
that, although we might come on to it in our discussions
today. I
am talking about real engagement with local authorities on what is
happening in an area in respect of job creation, the skills agenda and
the quality and type of courses to which Jobcentre Plus sends people.
Only last week I had an e-mail from a constituent who is furious that
Jobcentre Plus has sent his engineering graduate son on a wholly
inappropriate course—he had less access to computer facilities
to look for work than he would have had at home. That is, frankly, a
waste of money and has discouraged that
individual. I
am talking about a range of issues with Jobcentre Plus. How does it
engage with local authorities? It is not always as good as it should be
at sitting down with local authority leaders, councillors, council
officers and the economic regeneration department of a local area, and
getting stuck in at the local level. I visit my local jobcentre
regularly. Excellent, dedicated, hard-working people work for Jobcentre
Plus. My impression is that they report up to their district manager,
who in my area covers the whole of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. The
district managers look up to the Minister and her ministerial team, but
are not as good as they could be at looking outwards in the local area.
I think that part 2 of the Bill is about getting all the
players—we have heard about the role of the local strategic
partnership—to be fully effective at a local
level. In
addition, Jobcentre Plus is not good at engaging with the voluntary
sector in local areas, and in some cases it is a hindrance to effective
engagement. It has stopped the co-operation that used to exist, and
which still exists between other organs of the state such as social
services, the probation service and health visitors. Jobcentre Plus
just says, “No, we can’t signpost, we can’t do
that work”. I am talking about basic things such as the
provision of emergency food supplies.
I do not
know what the Minister does in her constituency on a Friday night when
constituents come to her and say that they have no money or food in the
house. I ring up my local Salvation Army, because I know that it has
food and will take it to that family over the weekend. Why can
Jobcentre Plus not signpost that type of service, to tell people that
it is available? It is reluctant to do that. I have engaged with the
issue for about a year, and have teased it out through a series of
parliamentary questions and letters to some of the Minister’s
departmental colleagues.
There is
great scope for that sort of partnership—working better with
local authorities, the local business community, local colleges and
training providers, and voluntary
agencies specifically helping in that area. Such work needs to be
different and better. If the Bill makes no difference and the situation
continues as it is, I am not filled with hope that we will achieve the
Bill’s worthy aims. I hope that fleshing out my concerns has
been useful to the Minister, and I will be grateful for her
response. John
Howell: I am a bit frustrated with clause 19, and with
part 2 of the Bill as a whole, because they do not seem to relate in
any sensible way to what happens on the ground. I wish to probe
Ministers more on what they think local strategic partnerships do. If
the list of commissioning organisations that we have discussed is
supposed to represent the bodies that sit on a local strategic
partnership, I should say that it does not. The local strategic
partnership that I sat on had representatives from the voluntary
sector, the Churches, and other bodies that were there because in the
mind of that local authority they had a role in addressing the
area’s problems.
I cannot see
why it is necessary to have a list in this part of the Bill at all. I
think Richard Kemp said in his evidence that what was needed was not a
duty and all that comes with that, including listing the people who
have to co-operate, but a general encouragement for all organisations,
including local and national ones, to co-operate in dealing with the
child poverty strategy. That would be
better. It
is also a bit strange to consider that the child poverty agenda is
taken down just one avenue within a local authority. There is not just
one channel. I refer Members to my speech on Second Reading, in which I
listed seven strategic partnerships, of one sort or another, that the
county council in my constituency has, and through which the issue of
child poverty runs. The issues that that council has identified as the
hotspots in its area for tackling child poverty are in many ways
particular to it, and would not be the same for another local
authority, even a neighbouring one. I do not see why we are
restricting, trying to hem in and make incredibly bureaucratic
something that we should trust local government to do. In the evidence
sessions, the local government authorities gave enough evidence to show
that they are already doing it, and are in many ways streets ahead of
national Government, particularly in getting to grips with tackling the
real effects of child poverty and producing successful
outcomes.
Helen
Goodman: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked
about the role of the DWP and jobcentres, as set out in subsection (3).
Clearly the legislation makes a difference as it ensures that
jobcentres are partner authorities, so the duties to co-operate in
making the needs assessment, in setting out the strategy and in taking
subsequent responsible action will move from a “can do”
to a “must do”. That is a very significant change in the
Bill. We
have some good experience. In parts of the country, for example, we
have a work-focused services child poverty pilot in which people from
jobcentres are working within Sure Start centres to engage with and
help people—particularly mothers—back into work. We have
just launched a school gates project to improve partnership working
between schools and jobcentres, which again is
to help mothers back into work. Data-sharing pilots in three local
authorities—Liverpool, Kent and Leeds—test the current
process for local authorities. City
strategy pathfinders are developing strategic plans to address problems
in their areas. For example, in east London we are bringing together
local services through pooled funding so that children’s
centres, schools, youth offending teams and others are brought
alongside the worklessness, skills and FE teams. We also have joint
working with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In Cornwall, a
beacon authority has been joint-working with the DWP, pooling budgets
and data sharing, and the £600,000 Real Choices child poverty
programme. I could go on about Lancashire, Waltham Forest and so on,
but I will not. Those are examples of good practice. I am perfectly
well aware that good practice does not exist throughout the country,
but we are going to put new responsibilities on the jobcentres and our
objective is to build on those places where there is good
working.
Andrew
Selous: I am grateful for that and I do not doubt that
there are good examples of best practice across the country. Where it
is relevant to meeting some of the deprivation issues that we have been
discussing, will she also refer briefly to Jobcentre Plus’s
co-operation with the voluntary sector?
Helen
Goodman: I must admit that I was slightly concerned by
what the hon. Gentleman said on that score. As someone who used to work
in the voluntary sector, I favour its involvement and co-operation with
local authorities on anti-child-poverty initiatives. That seems to be
rather different from what he suggested, which was that it should
signpost people who phone up the DWP to the voluntary sector rather
than to statutory provision. He mentioned the instance of people
phoning up; in my constituency I signpost them to the crisis loans
facility in the social fund, and I think that all hon. Members ought to
do the same. I would be extremely concerned if he was suggesting that
instead of signposting people to the social fund, which is meant to be
the safety net at the very bottom of the social security system, we
should divert them to the voluntary sector.
Andrew
Selous: Of course I recognise the important work that the
social fund does and of course I direct my constituents there. I hope
that the Minister recognises that the benefits system, comprehensive as
it is with wonderful aspirations, is not perfect, and that people fall
through the net of crisis loans and the social fund.
I would not
be surprised if, like me, the Minister has constituents who find over a
weekend that the social fund or the Jobcentre is not always able to
help—perhaps because a decision maker is still looking at their
case. It is fairly regular in my casework to find constituents who, for
whatever reason, have no money and no food over the weekend,
notwithstanding the best efforts of the social fund and the staff in
the Jobcentre. In those circumstances, does the Minister not think it
sensible for Jobcentre staff to have a list of voluntary organisations
that could help over the
weekend?
11.45
am
Helen
Goodman: Again, I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s
conception of the appropriate role of the voluntary
sector.
Ms
Buck: The point about such emergencies, which we all
experience, is important. Although charitable enterprises can be vital
in helping people, if I was confronted with the case of a parent and
children who had no money to feed themselves over the weekend—as
I have been on occasion—I would get in touch with the duty
social worker and ensure that there was a guarantee of help, rather
than relying on the possibility of a voluntary or charitable
organisation filling the gap, however good they might
be.
Helen
Goodman: My hon. Friend demonstrates immense common sense.
We now direct people to the voluntary sector on things such as debt
advice. However, the route to which my hon. Friend points—that
of relying on the statutory services—is the proper approach. I
do not think that I can add any more to what I have
said.
Andrew
Selous: I will come back one more time as this is an
important issue. The hon. Member for Northavon often asks for numbers
when talking about these issues, and he is right to do so as he wants
to know the scale of the problem. I do not know whether the Minister is
aware of the food bank network up and down the country. It provides the
sort of assistance that I mentioned is provided by the Salvation Army
and others. Last year, 24,000 people in this country went to food
banks. That indicates that these are not isolated cases, and that up
and down the country there are instances where such measures are
needed, notwithstanding the best efforts of staff at Jobcentre Plus and
the social fund, the call centres, emergency social workers and so
on.
I do not for
a moment suggest that we should sweep away any of the statutory
provision. The first duty is for the statutory services to work well
and properly. I ask the Minister to look at the evidence and the facts,
and perhaps to reconsider the issue.
Helen
Goodman: I know very well that the voluntary sector plays
a fantastic role in this country. It innovates, provides examples of
best practice and, by co-operating locally on the child poverty needs
assessment and strategy, it has a significant role to play. However, my
view remains that we should not rely on, co-opt or drive the agenda of
the voluntary sector. It should remain what it is: voluntary and
independent. I do not agree with the picture drawn by the hon.
Gentleman, and I am not sure that it is strictly relevant to the
clause. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 19
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
20Co-operation
to reduce child poverty in local
area
Andrew
Selous: I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 20,
page 11, line 45, leave out
‘each’ and insert
‘those’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 5, in
clause 20, page 11, line 45, after
‘authorities’, insert ‘as the authority thinks
fit’.
Andrew
Selous: The amendments are about giving responsible local
authorities the flexibility to achieve their statutory duties in the
way that they believe is best for them. I put it to the Minister that
clause 20(1)(b) is too prescriptive and smacks in part of a Government
who do not trust local people to exercise accountability on their local
authority through the ballot box.
I offer an
analogy to explain my rationale. It would be fair enough if the task
demanded by Government of a local authority or any organisation was to
shift a load of bricks from one side of a building site to another. It
would not be right, however, for central Government to dictate exactly
how that task should be done in over-prescriptive detail. The Minister
referred in earlier debates to the importance of clause 20(1)(c), which
gives local authorities some flexibility, which we welcome. It is
important to have the ability to include bodies that are not in the
list in clause 19. My worry about subsection (1)(b) is that it might
force people to waste time—to come to meetings where they might
not have anything to contribute. We believe in giving more
responsibility and trusting local authorities more, rather than trying
to pin them down and telling them whom to work with, without any
choice.
Mr.
Stuart: It is also about giving local authorities a sense
of ownership and empowerment to tackle these difficult issues. Rather
than engage in a needless bureaucratic exercise, they should focus on
the job in hand and the place in which they find themselves. My hon.
Friend is right to table amendments to give that freedom and sense of
empowerment to local
authorities.
Andrew
Selous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to
labour the case for these two amendments. I have set out my concerns
about wasting the time of public services. When people travel to
meetings, there is a cost. If they are not at their desks, they are
forgoing time and attention that they could be devoting to other areas.
If they have something to contribute, they should do so and, of course,
the local authority can insist on that. For instance, a local authority
can say to the health services that action is needed on a health
inequality, or say to the police that action is needed in a particular
area. It can say to Transport for London—or whoever—that
the buses are not running between where people are living and where the
jobs are. That is absolutely right. However, this proposal is
over-prescriptive and runs the risk of wasting public servants’
time, which I am trying to
avoid. Mr.
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): I share, appreciate and
commend the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to localism, which is
absolutely right, but I wonder whether he shares my concern. I made the
point during the evidence sessions that we have some dreadful local
authorities that need a central mechanism and measurement process to
ensure that they do what we ask of
them.
| 
